Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[Bob's World]

Damn the lawyers anyway!

We say we are "at war" so that we can invoke wartime authorities to do things that would not be allowed if we were "at peace" and operating under law enforcement authorities. Not only would we not be able to do these drone strikes, but arguably would have to pack up our tent in Afghanistan and go home from there as well.

Yet logic tells us that we are not really at war. If we were in the beginning, the ends that justified that status have long been met. So while we open ourselves up to the tremendous strategic risk of "losing a war," we don't dare call it over for concern over the tactical risks of losing wartime authorities....

Hmm. We've made a sticky mess of this.

Personally, my vote is drop the war facade. We really don't need it. Anyone who really needs killing will still get killed, and we will have set the legal and strategic framework for moving on to a broader approaches that are less likely to violate the sovereignty of others in ways that tend to validate the very points that AQ makes about the US to fuel acts of terrorism against us in the first place.

Constraints can be good. It was the lack of constraints in Iraq and Afghanistan that got us so deep in those two theaters, and it was the presence of constraints that kept us from overreacting in places like the Philippines and Indonesia. Constraints help one to make the right decisions, while the lack of constraints often enables poor decision making. The US has been operating without effective restraint for too long now. Since about 1989, in fact.

I remember when it was a big deal when the U.S. violated another nation's airspace, or dropped a bomb on some sovereign nation or another. We should make it a big deal again.

[jmm99]

(1) We are engaged in an armed conflict with AQ - and you yourself have stated that AQ is engaged in unconventional warfare against us. Under LE rules, direct actions to kill would be illegal - period, full stop.

(2) The argument about the US violating other national sovereignty is a red herring - at least to the extent that it seeks to make direct actions illegal vice the persons attacked. If we violate sovereignty, the violated nation (not the terrs we kill) have remedies under I Law. In most cases, they seem to have exercised the remedy of diplomatic protest. Fine; once the protest is made, I Law is satisfied. Or, the violated nation could sue for damages, etc.; but they seem not to do that. Instead, they take our billions in foreign aid.

Your construct seems to include only "war" (in an all-out sense) or "peace" (which involves only LE rules). I'd say that TVNSAs (Transnational, Violent, Non-State Actors) present us - by their choice, not ours - with a middle ground (armed conflicts, usually of lower intensity than conventional war).

Regards, despite definite disagreement

Mike

[Bob's World]

Mike, perhaps you can agree with me. I have no problem with declaring an open season on AQ, so long as we have the wisdom to not allow the intel guys to slap that label on every nationalist insurgency movement they assoaciate with. And also the wisdom to not be manipulated by shady allied leaders who just want us to help them but the beat down on their own insurgent populace. I just think its time to retire the "We are at war" mantra. It makes us sound weak and scared, and enables thinking that makes us act like a bully with allies and opponents allike.

Wars carry too much strategic risk; and law enforcement does not work well on those who take their primary sanctuary in being outside the law. To paraphrase Huey Lewis: "I want a new construct." Like Huey's problem, our current program may make us feel good in the short term, but the side effects are brutal.

(I want a new drug One that won't make me sick One that won' make me crash my car Or make me feel three feet thickI want a new drug One that won't hurt my head One that won't make my mouth too dry Or make my eyes too redOne that won't make me nervous Wondering what to do One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you When I'm alone with youI want a new drug One that won't spill One that don't cost too much Or come in a pillI want a new drug One that won't go away One that won't keep me up all night One that won't make me sleep all dayOne that won't make me nervous Wondering what to do One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you When I'm alone with you I'm alone with you babyI want a new drug One that does what it should One that won't make me feel too bad One that won't make me feel too goodI want a new drug One with no doubt One that won't make me talk too much Or make my face break outOne that won't make me nervous Wondering what to do One that makes me feel like I feel when I'm with you When I'm alone with you)

[OccamsRazor]

Jimm99 - I just saw this thread now. I had a blast writing that paper for my Law of War class last spring, and I'm glad that you had a chance to take a look at the final product.

Also, O'Razor is awesome. I think it might be my new handle :-)